CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000819/3537
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000819
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Naveen Arora
1520/13 A-1, Third Floor,
Govind Puri,
New Delhi-110019.
Respondent : Mr. Harvinder Singh
PIO
Ministry of HRD
Department of Higher Education.
Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
RTI application filed on : 01/12/2008
PIO replied : 29/01/2009
First appeal filed on : 22/12/2008
First Appellate Authority order : 16/02/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 30/03/2009
Information sought:
The appellant had asked following points under the RTI Act, 2005:-
i) Copy of the business rules/ Order of Government of India/order of President of
India/Cabinet decision wherein Council of Architecture is assigned to the Ministry of
Human Resource Development, Govt. Of India since is establishment in year 1972
under the Architects Act, 1972.
ii) Copy of entire file noting station approval of the President of India/Prime
Minister/Cabinet/Council of Ministers/Minister In-charge in rejecting the proposal of
council of Architecture for amendments in council of Architecture (Minimum
Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations, 1983, as amended in 2006.
iii) Copy of entire file stating reasons/grounds on which the amendments proposed by the
Council of Architecture in June 2006 in the Council of Architecture (Minimum
Standards of Architectural Education) Regulations 1983 as amended in 2006, were
not a approved by the Central Government.
iv) Copy of the comments/suggestions/objections received by the Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Govt. of India, on the amendments proposed by the Council
of Architecture in Council or Architecture (Minimum Standards of Architectural
Education) Regulations, 1983, as amended in 2006, from various stakeholders on the
basis of which the approval to these amendments were considered by the Central
Government.
v) Copy of past file notings/record/precedent wherein Central Govt. conveyed its
approval to the amendments in the Council of Architecture (Minimum Standards of
Architectural Education) Regulations, 1983, with the consultation conducted by the
Central Govt. from any stakeholder.
vi) Copy of provisions of the Architects Act, 1972, Rules, file notings stating
reasons/requirements for consultation with various stakeholders on the Regulations
made by the Council of Architecture in the past and also in present while granting
approval by the central Govt.
vii) Copy of the provisions of the Architects Act, 1972 or any other legal provisions,
authorizing Central Govt. to have consultations and specifying who are stakeholders
to be consulted for approving the Regulations made by the Council of Architecture
and also for amending those Regulations.
viii) Years wise details of grant-in-aid granted by the Central Govt. to the Council of
Architecture since its establishment in the year 1972.
ix) Copy of entire file notings stating approval of the President of India/Prime
Minister/Cabinet/Council of Ministers/Minister-in-charge in rejecting the proposal of
Council of Architecture for enhancement of Registrations Fees, Renewal Fees, etc. by
amending the Council of Architecture Rules, 1973.
x) Copy of file notings wherein reasons/grounds on which proposal for enhancement of
fees by the Council of Architecture was rejected/not found justified are recorded and
communicated to the Council of Architecture.
PIO’s reply:
The PIO had replied to the appellant that the information required scrutiny of the record since
nineteen seventies. Efforts were being made to locate the records for the supply of information
keeping in view the instructions/restrictions prescribed in the RTI Act, 2005. However, at that
time they could provide copies of some of documents totaling 350 pages. These documents will
covers most of the information sought. Therefore, in case you want to obtain the copies of these
documents, you may deposit a requisite amount of Rs. 700/- @Rs.2/- per page for the same in
the Govt. account.
First Appellate Authority ordered:
First Appellate Authority ordered that “on perusal of the comments, it has been seen that
the information as asked for has already been furnished vide this Ministry’s letter of even
number dated the 29th January, 2009 within 30 days from the receipt of appellant’s letter dated
the 26th December, 2008 received in this Ministry on 01.01.2009. The time limit starts with
effect from the date on which the RTI application, complete in all respect, reaches the CPIO.
Appellant’s assertion that the IPO could be filled up by the CPIO himself is untenable as that act
would have been illegal on the part of CPIO. Begin a financial instrument, it is for the person
concerned to fill up the same.”
Reasons for Appeal:
The appellant contends that he had first sent a IPO without filling the name of the payee, which
was sent back to him for filling the name of the payee. The appellant contends that the date of
application should be considered the date when he first sent the application, not the date on
which the IPO with the correct name was sent. The appellant also states that some of the
information sent to him is irrelevant and information relating to his points i), ii),v), vi), vii), viii)
and ix) has not been supplied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent
Respondent : Mr. Mohan Das on behalf of PIO Mr. Harvinder Singh
The appellant has sent and IPO of Rs.10/- without filling in the name of payee. The PIO sent the
IPO back and asked him to send it in the name of the “Account Officer MHRD”. This was really
unnecessary since the PIO would have easily written the payee’s name and saved the time and
cost of posting the IPO to the appellant. The PIO first asked the appellant to pay Rs. 700/- at Rs.
2/- per page on 29/01/2009. The PIO admits at that time only part of the information was ready
which he supplied on payment of Rs.700/-. Subsequently he sent a letter on 25/02/2009 asking
for further payment of Rs.500/- to supply another 250 pages of information.
It would have been a good gesture in the part of the PIO who have filled in the payee’s name and
not returned the PIO to the appellant. However, one can still see reasonable justification for
taking the additional fee of Rs.700/- on the basis that it was within 30 days of receipt of the
proper IPO. However, the subsequent demand of Rs.500/- cannot be justified on any ground.
The appellant has complaint that some of the pages given to him were not relevant. When large
amount information relating to past has to be provided. The PIO is justified in assessing the
records in which the information is likely to be.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to supply the complete information to the appellant before
15 June 2009.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
3rd June, 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(AK)